Misplaced Pages

:Deletion review/Log/2006 June 18 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Deletion review | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Xoloz (talk | contribs) at 17:09, 23 June 2006 (→[]: closed moribund debate). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:09, 23 June 2006 by Xoloz (talk | contribs) (→[]: closed moribund debate)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

18 June 2006

Fred Wilson (venture capitalist)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Fred Wilson (venture capitalist)

Stated result was "delete, no reason to keep it and was an autobiographical article anyway". The actual result was no consensus, although there were issues with meat puppets on both sides. WP:AUTO is not grounds for deletion, only if it violates neutrality, verifiability, and notability guidelines. No rationale was provided by the administrator, and on follow-up he only offered "The reasons to delete it outweighed the reasons to keep it." I have no opinion on whether this article should be kept or not, but the administrator (same as on two reviews below) should try to adhere to the standards and put in a good faith effort to determine consensus rather than impose his own opinion. I therefore request Relisting. ~ trialsanderrors 23:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Agree with the above, and also request Relisting. I was the editor who questioned the original deletion summary, as indeed the result was no consensus, only to receive the vague and non-responsive follow-up mentioned above. The AfD discussion brought up arguments on both sides, including numerous notability arguments in support of keeping it. Isarig 04:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. Article fails to establish anything above and beyond what is implied by "venture capitalist", is autobiographical, and serves no evident purpose other than to promote the subject's businesses. No prejudice against later creation of a properly encyclopaedic article which establishes notability per WP:BIO. Just zis Guy you know? 06:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion - action within admin discretoinary power. --WinHunter 07:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, well within admin's discretion. Misplaced Pages is not a vehicle for self-promotion. WP:AUTO is damn good grounds for deletion as it implies a failure to meet WP:N in the vast, vast majority of cases (most don't even come to AfD), and there is no reason to believe that this article was an exception. Sole activity of note to the public appears to be writing a blog for which no arguments for notability have been presented, the rest is his resumé, with no evidence that his companies meet WP:CORP either. Arguments to keep amount to so much armwaving that I'm surprised the limbs in question didn't fall off. --Sam Blanning 08:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse Deletion. AfD is not a vote, it's a discussion. --Improv 03:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion - per Sam Blanning above: NOT a vehicle for self-promotion. Fortunately Sam, reconstructive surgery can work wonders for damaged limbs. Doc Tropics 04:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure per Sam's arguments. The closer could have been a bit more tactful in writing up the decision but the decision is well within normal administrative discretion. Rossami (talk) 05:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist - arguments were made that he was notable within his field that were not rebutted, but were not considered by the closing admin. If he's started two companies and runs a popular blog, I think the article deserves another look.--SarekOfVulcan 16:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Starting companies is trivial in developed countries - you just need a small sum of money and to fill in some forms. And getting a blog requires nothing. Of course, starting successful companies, let alone notable ones, is a lot more harder, ditto writing a popular blog, but I've seen no evidence that either the blog or the companies are notable. --Sam Blanning 19:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist -- Well, I'm exasperated that the commenters here have no knowledge of the industry in which Fred works, no knowledge of the size of his successful VC-backed companies (Yoyodyne -- inveted direct-marketing on the internet, bought by Yahoo, etc. etc.), and no interest in actually reading the article they say should be deleted. Mcenedella 23:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Drug-free

This user is drug-free.
This user is interested in drugs.
This user is not interested in drugs.


Speedied under t2 (not policy). --Pascal666 21:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

TheSmartMarks.com

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/TheSmartMarks.com

Undelete and Comment The admin said "The result of the debate was working around the anon comments and the like" which isn't really true. There were three non-anonymous users who argued that it be kept (me, Kernoodle, and Voice of Treason) and there were 8 non-anonymous users who argued that it be deleted (WAVegetarian, Oakster, Whomp, Mrrant , Rory096, Sandstein, TruthCrusader, and McPhail), one of whose opinion was disregarded (TruthCrusader) because his position on the subject wasn't neutral, so it was really 3 to 7. The statement that "the result of hte debate was working around the anon comments" is not true, and there is clearly a marked disagreement (3-7). If you want to count non-anonymous users who voted, the total tally is 8 to 9 in favor of it being deleted. It is asinine to argue that an 8-to-9 concensus should be enough to have an article deleted and if you want to go by the 3-7 tally, that is still unfair because nearly one third of the people argued that it be kept.JB196 16:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Endorse deletion. There's a clear supermajority even when the socks are gone (70% is within discretion), and the only case that this site was encyclopedic was because it evolved from another site mentioned in passing in the history of a marginally encyclopedic author's article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
    AMIB thanks for the response. What is it that makes you refer to anybody as sockpuppets? Just because htey're anonymous IPs doesn't mean they're sockpuppets of another user. Please WP:ASG in the future until there is evidence to indicate that one user is using multiple IPs.
    What is your criteria for "within discretion"? Which users are in your opinion "within discretion" and which are not?
    And lastly, what exactly is that "clear supermajority" because as I indiacted in my previous post, there doesn't appear to be a majority either way, which points to the conclusion that the article should be kept.JB196 19:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
    They weren't sockpuppets as in they were all the same user; they were clearly meatpuppets rounded up on the forums. Same difference. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion - 70% is reasonable for admin discretion (and the admin probably disregarded Kernoodle with his two edits anyways), and aside from that I would've voted delete myself. — Laura Scudder ☎ 20:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion - agree that 70% is reasonable, deletion within admin discretionary power. (Btw AfD isn't a vote) --WinHunter 07:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion - per above, admins are entitled to discount votes from meatpuppets.--Kchase02 T 07:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse Deletion - Admin's action was correct. Comment - using charged words like 'asinine' does little to strengthen an argument. A more neutral phrase like "It seems unreasonable..." actually invites people to look more closely rather than smacking them in the face with it :) Doc Tropics 04:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure. While we welcome facts from anyone, the discounting of opinions of anonymous and suspiciously new users is a long-standing practice. It is not meant to be punitive but it has proven to be a necessary defense against the frequent attempts we've had by vandals trying to game the system and to bias our decision-making processes. Rossami (talk) 05:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Dirt pudding

Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Dirt_pudding

  • Undelete and comment The consensus on the discussion was for transwikification. I did this task, moving the recipe section of the article to the wikibooks cookbook. I don't feel as though there was any consensus for delete on the page, and I think a valid case was made for the noteworthiness of the dessert. Misplaced Pages obviously has plenty of articles on unusual deserts (e.g. Baked Alaska).
  • Endorse closure, keep deleted.There is a consensus—one, I might add, that I do not agree with, but clearly a consensus—that recipes are not appropriate for Misplaced Pages. When you remove the recipe from this article, there's nothing left. The discussants who voted to transwiki probably should have explicitly used the word "delete," but it is very reasonable to assume that's what they meant. The article is just a recipe. When you remove the recipe from the article, what is left contains nothing to suggest any cultural importance. Dirt pudding is not comparable to Baked Alaska, because the latter is a recognized dessert found in most comprehensive cookbooks, and with literary references going back at least to 1921. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC) P. S. Google Books, which unlike Google web searches contains only material meeting the WP:V and which is undistorted by SEO, bloggers, and forums, reports 1210 pages on Baked Alaska and six on Dirt Pudding; however, of those six, at least two refer to actual dirt, e.g. "Yesterday I made a dirt-pudding in the garden, wherein to plant some slips of currant." Dpbsmith (talk) 20:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Closing admin: I have closed the debate as "transwiki" and have successfully merged the content to b:Cookbook:Dirt pudding, and the page can therefore be speedily deleted under WP:CSD#A5. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, keep deleted. Consensus was not to keep. --Ezeu 01:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure Don't see any procedural issues. Article can be recreated as a non-recipe write-up if there is enough material and history to make it notable. (And from quick Googling, that seems like a tough cookie. All I see is recipes.) ~ trialsanderrors 01:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse: The recipe now is a speedy delete, as we already have the "article" at Wikibooks. There aren't very many recipes that are encyclopedic, as they fall into the how-to guide category that was one of the first WP:NOT's. Geogre 12:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse Closure Corect judgement of consensus in my view. I count 3 transwiki and delete, one transwiki (implied delete), my no vote, and one keep. That's a reasonably clear consensus to delete. Eluchil404 01:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Makharinsky

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kirill Makharinsky
  • Delte and comment. I'm unsure what to do here. I've started AfD discussions before, but this seems to be a review for an article which just reappeared again after having been deleted in April 2006. I'm not sure what I should do after this step. The reasons for deletion seem to be non-notablity (except for winning Graduate of the Year), vanity, autobiography. Interlingua 23:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion (again) of self-evident vanispamcruftisement. It is almost impossible not to conclude that the creator, Dezhnev (talk · contribs), is Makharinsky himself, and it's very likely that the editor who repeatedly adds Makharinsky and his website to other articles, User:GOY2006, is also Makharinsky. Just zis Guy you know? 11:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm confused. What exactly are we discussing here? The article is already protected against recreation after being deleted yesterday as a repost. Metros232 14:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse properly closed AfD. Keep deleted. --Ezeu 01:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Question. This page discussed at AFD, deleted, recreated twice (both times apparently by user:Dezhnev) and re-deleted twice. Since the nominator opened this discussion thread, the page has been created as a protected {{deletedpage}}. Is this discussion still relevant? Is anyone actually requesting the undeletion? Rossami (talk) 05:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Armando Lloréns-Sar

In Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Armando Lloréns-Sar, the quoted result was keep, but the reviewing admin apparently failed to notice that the page was protected and blanked. The result probably should have been keep, revert to the last version before it was blanked or vandalized, and consider separately the question of whether it should be protected.

So Overturn action, Endorse result, and revert to last unblanked version. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Overturn action, Endorse result, and revert to last unblanked version per Arthur Rubin. The protection should have been lifted prior to closing of the AfD debate since the privacy claims were no longer maintainable. ~ trialsanderrors 08:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist or have an admin that can find the content of the article reclose the AfD without prejudice. In this case I think the closing comment: "The result of the debate was there's no consensus either way, but there's no content I can actually find, so I'm deleting" seems misinformed. Reading the discussion makes clear that the content was available in the history throughout the AfD, and it was that content that was being discussed, not the blanked page on top. If the closing admin knew this, he should have made that clear and made a decision based on the content. It appears that the decision was made on the basis of there being no content, which was not the case. NoSeptember 09:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist - unless I'm missing something, this one does seem to have gone wrong. Metamagician3000 09:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I could restore it now. There seems to be a consensus to overturn the decision. (my fault in the first place) Will (message me!) 10:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist - No consensus is probably right conclusion by the deleting admin but deleting the article this way and said it was a result of AfD is wrong. --WinHunter 18:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This entry has now been recreated and redirected to Daily Kos by User:Hipocrite. I don't have issues with the action, but I have issues that the action was taken without/against consensus. ~ trialsanderrors 18:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn action, Endorse result, and revert to last unblanked version per Arthur Rubin. The redirect isn't sufficient, imo, because that page doesn't contain the information from the blanked page (and shouldn't). If/when the page is recreated it will probably need to be protected from User:Armandoatdailykos, but that's another issue to take up later. Dori 20:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
    DRV is not the place to pick the version of the article. I think people mean to say, undelete the history, let people edit the page, and start a discussion on the talk page to decide what the article should look like, or if it should be a redirect. NoSeptember 21:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
    I guess that's shorthand for "Unprotect so that it can be reverted to the last unblanked version". Reverting is not an admin job, unprotecting is. ~ trialsanderrors 22:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
    Oh? Reverting is not an admin's job? Perhaps I am misreading your post here... KillerChihuahua 12:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
    I parsed that as, "any editor can do the reverting, once the article is unprotected, but it takes an admin to unprotect it. Reverting isn't an admin's job specfically." It's not a comment on what admins can and cannot do. · rodii · 12:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks, rodii. ~ trialsanderrors 13:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Mooted by recreation in appropriate version without GFDL violations. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)